Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’

As we speak, I am watching riots. I am watching burnings and lootings of businesses, I am watching public access points being seized and blockaded, I am watching rabid calls to violence. All in the name of “demonstrations.”

I am watching what horrified sadly-too-few Germans in the 1930s is what I’m watching.

I ask myself, how many conservative riots have there been? The answer, of course, is zero.

Is it just black people who riot? I mean, aside from Ferguson, we can go back to lots of other black riots, such as Watts in ’68 and so on.

But I ask myself, how many conservative black people rioted? And the answer, of course, is zero.

This behavior isn’t about race. It’s about a culture that has been led astray by means of an utterly depraved worldview commonly known as “liberalism.”

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalismin which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

By the classical definition of liberalism, I am a liberal. I want more freedom for individuals because individuals are held accountable for their actions and therefore I want a limited government that emphasizes that liberty and freedom and corresponding duty of the individual. Barack Obama, Nazi Pelosi (couldn’t resist) and Harry Reid are fascists bent on expanding government until individuals are free to do what government wants to force them to do by a massive system of laws, policies, rules, regulations, bureaucracies, and of course out-of-control executive orders by a now self-professed king or emperor who has fundamentally abrogated the Constitution and tossed out the Separation of Powers.

True liberals want individual personal liberty and individual personal responsibility that must correspond with individual personal liberty. Because rights without duties is moral chaos. And therefore true want limited government, they want a laissez-faire free market economy, they want the rule of law and they want private property rights. The “liberals” of today are joyfully running roughshod over all of these values as they seek to impose bigger and bigger and more and more powerful – and more totalitarian and more fascist – government.

What’s the mechanism of the left? We’re watching it all around us today as liberals riot and burn and loot over a police officer who shot a man who had just strongarm robbed a store and brutally shoved aside its owner ON VIDEO, walked down the middle of a large avenue as if he owned it, physically assaulted a police officer in his car, punched that officer in the face, tried to take the officer’s weapon from him, and then ultimately charged the officer with murderous rage as the officer fired repeatedly at him. That’s what the witness testimony – of at least half a dozen black people, fwiw – says and that’s what the forensic evidence says.

That was, of course, irrelevant to the left, who raced off to burn and loot and riot the moment they heard there would be no indictment of the police officer without bothering to hear the massive evidence justifying that jury decision (which included three black people). Some examples of the eyewitness testimony:

“Mike Brown continuously came forward in the charging motion and at some point, at one point he started to slow down and he came to a stop. And when he stopped, that’s when the officer ceased fire and when he ceased fired, Mike Brown started to charge once more at him. When he charged once more, the officer returned fire with, I would say, give an estimate of three to four shots. And that’s when Mike Brown finally collapsed right about even with this driveway.” Read original – Grand Jury Volume 6 , page 167

“Then Michael turned around and started charging towards the officer and the officer still yelling stop. He did have his firearm drawn, but he was yelling stop, stop, stop. He didn’t so he started shooting him.” Read original – Grand Jury Volume 18, page 27

“I thought he was trying to charge him at first because the only thing I kept saying was is he crazy? Why don’t he just stop instead of running because if somebody is pulling a gun on you, first thing I would think is to drop down on the ground and not try to look like I’m going to attack ‘em, but that was my opinion. ” Read original – Grand Jury Volume 11, page 181

“Um, I guess it was like he stopped and he turned around like this, and then he started moving towards the officer and kind of looked like he picked up a little bit of speed, and then he started going down.” Read original – Grand Jury Volume 23, page 137

And once an inaccuracy becomes part of a person’s recollection, it’s almost impossible to dislodge. Even when that person, Tversky wrote, is challenged with direct information that refutes his or her own memory. “Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable — due to the reconstruction of their memory — to reconsider their initial understanding.”

This appears to be what occurred in the Darren Wilson investigation. Even when authorities challenged witnesses with forensic evidence — which McCulloch said “does not change because of public pressure or personal agenda” — they didn’t back down. He gave as an example witnesses who said they saw Wilson pump bullets into Brown’s back, sticking with their story even after autopsies demonstrated that no bullets entered Brown’s back.

They “stood by original statements even through their statements were completely discredited by the physical evidence,” McCulloch said.

Of the 20 or so eyewitnesses who appeared before the grand jury, most of those who spoke to the issue said they believed Mr. Brown had his hands up. But some accounts were clearly not credible and were recanted under interrogation. And of the credible witnesses whose stories were largely consistent, many were at odds with one another.

The people who claimed that Michael Brown surrendered and had his hands up and was saying “Don’t shoot” but that Officer Wilson shot him in the back, etc, were directly refuted by the physical evidence. Many of them actually DID recant their previous inflammatory testimony when placed under oath.

There was NO WAY IN HELL A JURY WAS EVER GOING TO CONVICT OFFICER DARREN WILSON. Just no freaking way. Juries are loathe to convict or even indict police officers because they are loathe to second-guess men and women who they know have a difficult job which is to protect people and protect society from violent predators.

“The notion that white cops are out there just killing black people is ridiculous. It’s flat-out ridiculous,” he said. “I challenge any black person to make that point. Cops are absolutely awesome. They’re the only thing in the ghetto (separating this place) from this place being the wild, wild west.”

This isn’t about race. It is easy to document that there are cases of black officers who shot and killed white suspects who were not indicted for their actions, as well.

The worst thing on earth that could happen to black communities is if police officers – stung by leftist hate and violence – stopped patrolling black neighborhoods and allowed the people they are being hated for killing to run the streets.

Those are simply facts.

But the facts simply didn’t matter to the left.

The following – detailing the story of a “rape” and the brutally dismissive culture that refused to respond to the terrible and shocking crime – is manifestly descriptive of the mindset of the left today.

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone’s editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie’s credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie’s account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn’t confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

What we find is that the Rolling Stone “reporter” actually went “rape-shopping” to find the perfect story to fit her pre-conceived narrative. This wasn’t “journalism,” it was LIBERAL journalism, which is another term for “Nazi propaganda.” Rolling Stone didn’t even bother to do interviews with anyone who could have told the truth or reported the actual facts because the last thing liberalism cares about is the truth or the facts. Liberals who as postmodernists mock the reality of truth the exact same way that Pontius Pilate mocked the existence of truth as he was turning away from the very embodiment of it and sentencing Him to death somehow hypocritically and dishonestly believe that they are the sole arbiters of the very thing that they deny. And so they alone are in sole possession of “the truth” and they act accordingly.

The fraternity that was dishonestly slandered by this story was vandalized, its members threatened and ostracized. Mobs of liberals chanted outside, “Burn this place down” over and over while they huddled inside. As the University of Virginia, reacting to the mobs and responding to the dictates of liberalism, issued a moratorium that has STILL not been lifted essentially shutting down the frat from the right to do business.

There was a “rape,” all right. Those young men and that fraternity were raped by progressive liberalism, which is fascism.

This story will soon be purged from the Rolling Stone database, purged from all the leftist hate sites that used it as “evidence” of their viciousness, and it will be like it never happened.

But the fascist feminist PC policies that the fascist PC Nazi university administrators and faculty implemented as a direct result of this lie will go on forever.

Liberalism is a lie made possible by lies. Liberalism is pathologically dishonest policies that are implemented as a result of pathologically dishonest lies from leftist liars. The issues that liberals gin up demonic hate in order to impose their fascist tyranny change as the same people employ the same tactic again and again and again. But the dishonesty and hypocrisy are always there.

Column The University of Virginia rape Rorschach test
SHARELINE
▼Those looking closely at the UVA rape story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum
▼Questioning the UVA rape story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood
December 3, 2014, 6:02 PM

Are you a “UVA truther”? In other words, are you an abhorrent, woman-hating, “pro-rape Republican”?.

Or are you a “feminazi” guided by “rape crisis fantasy” and driven by emotions over logic?

Those are among the epithets being hurled in the court of public opinion over the explosive allegations of a staggeringly awful rape at the University of Virginia published by Rolling Stone. In the story, a woman identified as Jackie tells of being led into a dark bedroom at a fraternity party, where seven men, with assistance from two others, raped her over a three-hour period.

The 9,000-word article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely set off a tidal wave of horror and outrage. Soon enough, though, came a trickle of inquiries into Erdely’s reporting methods, chiefly the question of why she hadn’t talked to the alleged perpetrators.

And since many of the first askers of that question had conservative or libertarian leanings, the feminist backlash was almost immediate. When The Times’ resident conservative columnist, Jonah Goldberg, examined holes in the story, his usual critics dismissed his conjectures as mere right-wing pushback against political correctness.

When a Reason magazine writer penned an evenhanded article on the case, indicating that he initially believed Jackie’s story, the liberal site Talking Points Memo nonetheless reacted with the headline “Libertarian Magazine Wonders if UVA Rolling Stone Rape Was a ‘Hoax.’” The lively feminist blog Jezebel did TPM one better: “‘Is the UVA Rape Story a Giant Hoax?’ Asks Idiot.”

Such snark is eye-catching and click-generating, but in this case, it’s not just conservatives and purported anti-feminists who are asking questions. In the New Republic, Judith Shulevitz eventually landed on an insight from lawyer and feminist social critic Wendy Kaminer, who told her, “I’d guess that the story is neither entirely fabricated nor entirely true and, in any case, compels a real investigation by investigators with no stake in their findings.”

In an interview on Slate’s feminist-leaning Double X podcast, writer Hanna Rosin confronted Erdely with questions similar to the ones her more libertarian counterparts had raised, with ambiguous results. On Wednesday, after further reporting including talking to several of Jackie’s friends, Rosin and Slate senior editor Allison Benedikt posted an article critical of both Erdely and Rolling Stone.

In the “us versus them” paradigm that so often colors discussions around gender and sexual assault , such a response might be surprising coming from a feminist. After all, it’s supposed to be the Jonah Goldbergs of the world (“idiots,” according to Jezebel) who would dare to question a woman’s account of a rape, or another woman’s account of her account. But the journalists and others who are now looking closely at this story represent a cross-section of the political spectrum.

Rosin and Shulevitz are hardly conservatives. Neither am I. Yet questioning the story will almost certainly get us dismissed as traitors to the sisterhood. If you don’t believe me, wait a few seconds for the rants from “activists” who will insist that asking rational, even obvious questions makes you a rape apologist, someone who dismisses all women’s stories or won’t admit that campus sexual assault is a problem.

Such attacks are not only absurd, they’re also insulting. They’re insulting to journalists, who know the importance of holding themselves and their sources accountable to the truth. Worse, they’re insulting to survivors of sexual assault whose stories should be told without obfuscation and equivocation. It’s that kind of murkiness, after all, that contributes to an undercurrent of suspicion of victims — an undercurrent that, unfortunately, continues to dominate many conversations about rape.

Inquiries into this story should not devolve into battles between truthers and believers, the “idiots” and the “real feminists.” Believe it or not, conservatives don’t have a monopoly on skepticism, just as liberals and feminists aren’t the only ones inclined to believe a story like Jackie’s. If those of us asking questions turn out to be idiots for not believing the story on its face, fair enough.

But last I checked, nothing cures idiocy like asking questions.

Which, ultimately, is another way of saying there’s no cure for modern so-called “liberalism.” Because to be a “liberal” today is to be a rabid fool who spits out hate and riots over any suggestion of a question.

They are modern Nazis by a euphemistic new name. But don’t think the tactics of Hitler and Goebbels aren’t alive and well in their demon-possessed souls.

You can’t reason with liberals because their knee-jerk reaction is invariably to demonize your motives – which are beyond anyone’s ability to prove or disprove – and thus demonize everything you think, say or do because you are a “racist” or a “homophobe” or a “misogynist” or a “misanthropist” or whatever label they want to hate you with. It’s an element of their theology that you are evil and therefore you must obviously be evil. And good luck talking to the rabid left.

I think of Ferguson. I remember the left decrying the Gestapo tactics of the police as they showed up in force to prevent rioting. All the subsequent rioting, of course, was clearly the result of the police for showing up with armored cars to prevent rioting. So of course after the grand jury verdict was read, the police weren’t out in force. And of course there was rioting. And the same cockroach leftists who had decried the police presence now proceeded to blame the lack of police presence for the next wave of rioting and burning and looting.

If the grand jury had decided to indict Officer Darren Wilson, do you know how many conservatives would have rioted? ZERO. And that’s because conservatives are decent and liberals are NAZIS and the worst kind of ugliness is always in their hearts 24/7, just waiting to erupt in another riot like all the other riots they’ve called “demonstrations.”

Because to be a liberal is to be morally insane and therefore to be insane in every other way, as well.

Meghan Daum is pointing out that a few liberals like herself were opposed to this fascist liberal mindset. And I actually take my hat off to Meghan Daum for her courage. But the fact of the matter is that there are VERY few like her in the worldview of liberalism. And she herself described the avalanche-of-hate fascist mindset that confronted anyone who tried in any way, shape or form to question this now-openly-revealed lie.

I don’t care what the subject is: ObamaCare? Yeah, everything that Obama and his rabid supporters said turned out not only to be untrue, but outright lies advanced to deceive the American people who were deemed “stupid.”

You can read transcripts of some of what ObamaCare architect – BECAUSE YES, HE WAS – here.

But you go back and see the hateful charges from Nazis – I mean “liberals” – who accused us of everything from racism (because to not adore absolutely everything about Barack Obama and his entire worldview meant you clearly had to be a racist) to hatred of the poor and literally a desire to kill them.

That “law” was passed by fascists using fascist methodology, pure and simple. It was passed by those who believe that the American people are stupid – and not deserving of individual liberty and not capable of individual personal responsibility – and therefore these sheep must be steered and guided if not herded by their Utopian masters.

We can talk about Obama’s fascist and tyrannous executive power grab over illegal immigration the same way.

If I sound furious, it is because I am FURIOUS. We have watched the Party of Lies, the Party of Satan, take over America and it may be too late to change course now from the “God damn America” that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have “fundamentally transformed America” into.

The essence of fascists is that they must lead the stupid sheep to pasture and they often have to lead the stupid animals by deception.

Democrats are tied with “the most pathologically dishonest people who ever existed.” Because you can be AS dishonest as a Democrat, but it is impossible to be MORE dishonest.

The tape, played on Fox News’ “The Kelly File,” showed Gruber speaking at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis.

Referring to the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-end health plans, he said: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”

Gruber specifically was referring to the way the “Cadillac tax” was designed — he touted their plan to, instead of taxing policy holders, tax the insurance companies that offered them. He suggested that taxing individuals would have been politically unpalatable, but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn’t understand the difference.

And ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber in a different speech:

This is similar to remarks he made at a separate event around the same time in 2013. In a clip of that event, Gruber said the “lack of transparency” in the way the law was crafted was critical. “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said.

Did Gruber do this twice? Nope; he did it at least three times (and probably many more):

A third clip of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has emerged, this time of the MIT professor speaking to a University of Rhode Island crowd in 2012 about the health care law’s so-called “Cadillac tax” — and bragging at the utter inability of the American people to comprehend its complexities.

The “Cadillac tax” requires that insurance companies, not individual policy holders, pay the difference between higher- and lower-cost packages — a plan that was pushed into realization by then-Sen. John Kerry, Mr. Gruber said, Fox News reported.

Mr. Gruber then said that a tax on individuals would have been “politically impossible” — but that a tax on companies would prove palatable to voters, mostly because they didn’t understand.

His comments, Fox News reported: “So basically, it’s the same thing. We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

These audio comments followed a clip that was played on Fox News’ “The Kelly File” on Tuesday evening that showed Mr. Gruber speaking at Washington University in St. Louis about the same “Cadillac tax” and saying it passed “because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”

And before that, another clip made the media rounds of Mr. Gruber saying at a different event in 2013 that Obamacare passed due in large part to its “lack of transparency.”

His widely reported comments: “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Mr. Gruber has since expressed regret on national television for his comments. But critics of Obamacare say his remarks only prove what many on the left really believe about Americans.

“It confirms people’s greatest fear about the government,” Sen. John Barrasso, Fox News reported. “Remember, it was Nancy Pelosi who said first you have to pass [Obamacare] before you get to find out what’s in it.”

And yes, I know when I said “fascist liberal” I was employing a tautology and saying the same thing twice in a slightly different way. You know, like the heart of liberal Darwinism’s “survival of the fittest,” where the “fittest” are defined as “the ones who survive.” Because “fascism” survived as “liberalism.” And one is as pathologically dishonest as the other.

Democrats are like the people who come up to you with a story to get money. and you give them money because you buy their pathetic story. And they walk away with your money mocking you for a stupid idiot because you were actually stupid enough to believe them.

And Democrats are nothing but liars and horrible demon-possessed people. So you actually MUSTbe truly stupid to believe them.

“Democrat.” It sounds good, right? You know, it sounds like somebody who cares about the will and the voice of the people.

Bullcrap. Democrats have naked CONTEMPT for the will and the voice of the people. The people are obstacles, they are pathetically stupid sheep who must be deceived in order to be hauled off to the slaughtering pen.

After the first tape surfaced — prompting Republican outrage — Gruber went on MSNBC to express regret. On Tuesday, he said: “I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments.”

But after Fox News played the second tape, GOP lawmakers said it proves what they’ve been saying all along.

Jonathon Gruber went on MSNBC rather than on Fox News because if he’d gone on the air with Megyn Kelly it would have taken about twenty seconds for everyone to know which one of those two was the “stupid” one. He knows he has to go to the channel that only STUPID PEOPLE WATCH in order to sell his patent lies.

The “stupid people” are Democrats. It’s not Republicans that are idiot enough to watch MSNBC. It’s the Nazi faithful who follow their Führer and await his next message from his bunker (and I don’t give a damn if you call it “the Führerbunker” or “the White House.” Because it’s the same place by a different name under this “president.”

PELOSI: We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.

So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.

Democratic Senate Minority Leader-elect Harry Reid called Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber “one of the most respected economists in the world” on the Senate floor during the 2009 push to pass Obamacare.

Lies and hypocrisy are the essence of Democrats. If you’re not a hypocrite and a liar, you’re not a Democrat. If you are a liar and a hypocrite, you are either a Democrat or a cockroach Nazi fascist by some other name crawling slithering around over some other part of planet earth. All you want is big totalitarian government to be imposed by any means necessary. But whether you’re an ISIS terrorist sawing people’s heads off or Barack Obama, if you are a Democrat you are somebody who views people as an obstacle who must either be exterminated, intimidated or lied to in order to get your way.

“NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.” And for the record, that party was the “German Workers Party” until Hitler got ahold of it. Because Satan is a socialist. It was HITLER who changed it to the National Socialist German Workers Party so that the world could better experience the hell of socialism after the communists gave us the first taste of that wicked, ugly hell. Neither of those two groups were ever honest about their project, either. If there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party,” and you don’t believe that would be the damned DEMOCRAT Party, you are worse than a fool to be that kind of ignorant to be so morally idiotic to believe that it is conservatives and Republicans who want to make America “socialist.”

Who votes Democrat? BAD PEOPLE, that’s who. People who are selfish and greedy and vote to take the stuff that other people worked for by raw government force, just like the damned Nazis did when they looted other people’s wealth from them. And they do it the same way the Nazis did; by pitting groups against groups and arguing for instance that white people are thieves and don’t deserve what they have. Just like the Nazis argued their race-baiting lies that Jews were thieves and didn’t deserve what they have.

Let’s describe the people who vote Democrat:

First there are the welfare turds. We now have in America generations of families who have never worked – unless you define “work” by “making more babies” in order to collect a larger welfare check. We have now more “Americans” on welfare than ever before in history. Which, to put it in Obama campaign-slogan terms means, “Yes we CAN go on welfare and food stamps and join the massively growing Useless Class who do absolutely NOTHING to build America and absolutely EVERYTHING to help collapse it. 100% of this group who can get off their lazy butts long enough to cast a ballot vote “Democrat.” To wit: the Democrat Party literally purchased their vote.

Then there are the “working class.” But let’s define what that REALLY means: the UNION class. The UNION class – because let’s call them what they truly are – survive by “collective bargaining.” Because throughout history, good workers who actually produced a benefit for their employers have never had to worry about their jobs, but only the lazy, bitter, slacker “workers” were in jeopardy. The trick to “collective bargaining” has always been to lie (see this whole damned article as a “for example”) to decent workers and deceive them into supporting the lazy, useless slackers who would have otherwise been FIRED in any honest workplace. And once you get your union in, good luck trying to fire these turds. And yeah, most of them vote “Democrat,” too. Because socialist Democrats impose bureaucracies, laws, regulations and judges that make it impossible for employers to do anything but knuckle under to the blue lie agenda of unions and Democrats who alternately climb over each other’s backs to keep grabbing more and more and more share of the pie.

Then you’ve got your intellectual class who live in the ivory towers of the universities. They actually have a lot in common with the first two groups above; namely, they live off of other people and depend upon government policy for their largesse. The cost of colleges/universities has inflated FAR more than damned near anything else. Do you know why? Because it’s an industry that is subsidized by the government. Government keeps pumping out “student loans” and increasing the amount of student loans as the costs of education skyrocket. And so colleges and universities respond by further raising the costs of education – because the students (another group of “stupid people” fwiw) – backed by more and more loan money that will put them in debt for DECADES – can “afford” higher tuition. And then higher tuition and higher tuition and higher tuition, ad infinitum.

A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote for education costs that you either can’t afford or decide to become a debt-slave to the government for decades to come in order to be able to afford.

And so if you are a “professor” what you really are is a pig with your snout shoved up past your ears into the trough of government socialism.

Your whole way of life depends on it.

And you therefore keep spewing and pumping out propaganda to keep the system flowing so it will keep pouring more of other people’s money into your pig trough. And you vote Democrat, of course. Because the Democrat Party is the Party of Pig Troughs.

There’s a passage from Burton Folsom Jr.’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal that comes closer to framing the essence of FDR’s New Deal in a nutshell – and explaining why the Filthy Rich vote Democrat – than anything I can think of:

Let’s start with the New Deal’s effort to promote industrial recovery: the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which became law in 1933 and was soon shortened to the NRA. Of that act, Roosevelt said, “History will probably record the National Industrial Recovery Act as the most important and far-reaching legislation ever enacted by the American Congress.” The president was right: the NRA was revolutionary. It allowed American industrialists to collaborate to set the prices of their products, and even the wages and hours that went into making them. Leaders in all industries, from steel and coal to shoulder pads and dog food, were invited to sit down together and write “codes of fair competition” that would be binding on all producers in their industry. — page 41

This identical tactic was employed again and again in various components of the New Deal: the rich and the powerful were able to cozy up to the politicians and write the laws and regulations that enabled THEM to continue but suppressed their smaller competitors from being able to compete. In some ways, the brilliance of the scheme was its counter-intuitiveness: the Filthy Rich imposed regulations on themselves that made the cost of doing business dramatically higher. Because they could afford to pay those higher costs of complying with regulations but their smaller competitors could not.

And thus the Filthy Rich and the Democrat Party became bedfellows: the Democrats got the massive totalitarian fascist control they wanted and the Filthy Rich got to choke out their smaller competitors and retain supremacy.

That tactic is still used to this very day even as the Democrats slanderously demonize the other side as doing what THEY are the ones who do: they keep imposing more and more and more and more sweeping regulations which drive up the cost of doing business. The small business that would have competed with the bigger companies and corporations can’t afford to comply with the burdens; but the Filthy Rich just hire another regulatory compliance officer and keep sailing along, knowing that they can increase their prices and make the people pay because they have no competition to drive their profits down.

Let me tell you a secret the Democrat Party, their mainstream media propagandists and their pseudo-intellectual leftist professor class don’t want you to know:

It’s 2014, but when it comes to wealth inequality in the United States, it’s starting to look a lot like 1929.

In the late 1920s, the top 10 percent of Americans possessed 84 percent of the country’s wealth. Since then, wealth inequality in America has followed a U-shaped trajectory, declining through the Great Depression until the mid-1980s, then steadily increasing since then. Now, the richest Americans have a share of the country’s wealth almost big enough to rival those in the late 1920s, according to a new study

The study, from Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics, uses a greater variety of sources to paint its picture of wealth inequality in the US than other recent analyses. […]

According to an analysis of data sourced through 2012 – including detailed data on personal income taxes and property tax – Professors Saez and Zucman found that the richest 0.1 percent of Americans have as much of the country’s wealth as the poorest 90 percent. Both groups control roughly 22 percent of total wealth, but while the average wealth of the bottom 90 percent is $84,000, the top 0.1 percent were comprised of 160,700 families with net assets above $20 million, according to their study.

An even closer look at their data has shown that while the growth of the American middle class has been restricted by modest income growth and soaring debt –thanks in large part to the 2008 mortgage crisis – the super-rich have been making significant gains in income and wealth.

While the bottom 90 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent control about 22 percent of the country’s wealth each, the top 0.01 percent of Americans now control 11.2 percent of total wealth. That share of the wealth held by the country’s richest 0.01 percent – a group of roughly 16,000 families with an average net worth of $371 million – is the largest share they’ve had since 1916, the highest on record, according to the study.

I think I’ve already explained why that is.

Keep in mind that for the first two years of Obama Democrats controlled the ENTIRE government. They passed EVERYTHING they wanted to pass and shoved it down the American peoples’ throats – lying as needed, we now know. Since then, they have held lock step control of the White House or the Führerbunker or whatever the hell Obama calls it when he’s not golfing, and the Senate under Democrat Harry Reid has blocked more Republican-House-passed bills and shut down more amendments than all previous Senate Majority Leaders in the entire history of the republic TIMES TWO.

But we’ve got two more giant lies from the party of the devil going on; namely, number one, that it’s somehow the Republican Party that is the “party of obstruction” when it’s the damn DEMOCRAT Party and number two that income inequality is the fault of Republicans when it has been the result of OBAMA’S vile FDR-esqe policies that have created this disaster.

Every single Democrat votes to crush the small businesses and therefore exalt the Filthy Rich. That is the malicious fascist evil of the Democrat Party tradition – and it has been thus for over eighty years.

If you don’t like exalting the Filthy Rich, support conservative Tea Party Republicans. Well, or else be a Democrat LIAR and lie about it being the fault of the other side who opposes the very thing you want to do and demonize them for doing.

I could add to these groups the people who despise America, the William Ayers and the Professor Ward Churchills and your Black Panther types. I could add the bitter race-baiters, I could add the people who want to divide America up by gender, or by all the other issues that these people want to divide America with. I could add the illegal immigrants who have no love for America or its ways but only want to come here to be able to exploit what others built. There are a lot of horrible, bad, warped, evil people who form the nucleus of the Democrat Party.

But let’s just stick with the three groups I discussed at greater length above, so you can contemplate the incredibly parasitical nature of the Democrat Party that is the party of leeches.

And realize that the quintessential tactic of this diseased party is to lie and lie and lie and then lie some more.

Because to the extent they aren’t truly “stupid,” they know that the American people are increasingly – since Democrats drove God out of this nation – become a bad people. And it is always the nature of bad people to prefer lies to the truth.

But you need to realize that it turns out that the hypocrisy of Hollywood liberals is all-pervasive and all-encompassing. Like the doctrine of human sin under Calvinist theology, hypocrisy extends into and corrupts every single aspect of the liberals’ being.

I came across this one-sided presentation of the wonders of ObamaCare in the Los Angeles Times and immediately saw that the “journalist” who “reported” on this story pathologically refused to consider the ramifications of what she was writing.

But consider: given that liberals LOVE to attack whole industries for not paying their workers enough, blah-blah-blah, look who ALSO hasn’t been paying their damn workers anywhere NEAR enough (before we deal with just what “big” beneficiaries of ObamaCare actually are getting).

We’re told in the article below:

More than most people, workers in the area’s vast entertainment industry are poised to benefit from the federal health law…

And do you know why that is? Think of it from the perspective that the liberals love to demonize everybody else over. Here, I’ll help:

“When people think Hollywood, they think George Clooney and Meryl Streep, but that’s not the average person in this town,” said Dan Kitowski, director of health services for the western region of the Actors Fund, a national nonprofit that does Affordable Care Act outreach.

Yeah, that’s right. Liberals are always out there demonizing CEOs and saying conservatives are EVIL because they think the people at the top should make more money than the people on the bottom. But that is only because, being liberals, these people are pure, rabid hypocrites who WILL NOT consider the log in their own facelift-surgery-widened eyes.

In 2011, actress Lynda Berg didn’t make enough money to qualify for health insurance through her union. And, on her own, she had trouble finding a plan she could afford because she’s a survivor of breast cancer, considered a preexisting condition..

The uncertainty of not having a health plan was stressful and at times expensive, she recalls. A few years ago she fell and broke her hand and elbow and ended up paying $4,000 for her medical care.

But all that has changed for Berg, 59. In March, she went online, signed up for a policy through Covered California, the state’s new health insurance marketplace set up under the Affordable Care Act, and now is getting medical care.

More than most people, workers in the area’s vast entertainment industry are poised to benefit from the federal health law. But as the new law takes hold, the massive overhaul has also stirred up considerable confusion and anxiety over how to navigate a host of new healthcare options.

For decades, artists have flocked to the state, and many have just scraped by while trying to get their big break. According to a study from the National Endowment for the Arts, California has the highest number of artists in the nation.

The same study found that more than 30% of artists are self-employed compared with 10% in the general population, and rates of uninsured are typically higher among the self-employed than others.

In the industry, actors and other movie workers typically get insurance through their unions. But many say they don’t get enough hours or steady work as actors to meet the income requirements to apply.

For instance, according to data from SAG-AFTRA, the country’s largest union for actors, broadcasters and recording artists, only about 15% of members qualify for health insurance through the union.

“When people think Hollywood, they think George Clooney and Meryl Streep, but that’s not the average person in this town,” said Dan Kitowski, director of health services for the western region of the Actors Fund, a national nonprofit that does Affordable Care Act outreach.

The federal law that went into full effect this year made it easier for people to buy health insurance on their own because coverage is guaranteed regardless of preexisting health conditions, and subsidies are available to make premiums more affordable.

That creates a new range of options for people who are self-employed or who may have held on to a job they didn’t like just for the benefits, said Laura Baker, a senior health and benefits consultant for consulting firm Mercer in Los Angeles. One Harvard study estimated that 11 million Americans were stuck in so-called “job lock” — not able to leave their jobs for fear of losing their health benefits.

“It’s certainly a whole new world for some,” Baker said.

Actress Berg, who lives in Beverlywood, now pays a premium of $145 a month for her Blue Shield of California plan. She’s using her coverage to get prescriptions for $5 a month that she was paying more than $100 to fill before. She plans to head to the doctor’s office soon for a checkup she’s been putting off.

“It’s a tremendous blessing to actors and anyone who doesn’t have insurance,” she said. “Even if you get a plan with a large deductible, at least you have that safety net … and you’re not in debt for the next seven years.”

At a recent workshop at the Actors Fund’s Los Angeles office, actors and artists tried to sort through their new choices.

In a room with a mural of the Hollywood sign on one wall, they asked questions specific to their unpredictable lifestyles: Can they find doctors when they’re on tour? Are specialists, such as throat doctors for singers, covered? Can they dip in and out of union health coverage, or change plans as their income shifts from job to job?

Jorge Bermudez, a percussionist who lives in Baldwin Park, asked what would happen if he couldn’t pay his premium one month. He jumps from gig to gig, and he’s afraid he’ll lose his coverage if he falls behind for a few weeks. He hasn’t had health insurance since he and his wife got divorced several years ago, and he hasn’t been able to get a much-needed hearing aid.

In the past, fluctuating incomes have meant that many artists such as Bermudez, not able to afford their own health plans, have simply gone without when their union insurance or other options lapsed. But now, many can afford individual plans, and are starting to put them to use.

Thousands of Angelenos like Berg signed up for a health plan during Obamacare open enrollment this year. Los Angeles County led the state in sign-ups, with more than 400,000 enrolling through the state exchange. The county made up almost 30% of the statewide total of 1.4 million.

Obamacare open enrollment ended in March, but people who lose their jobs — or get married, have a baby, move or have any other serious change of circumstance — can sign up for a plan year-round. Open enrollment begins again in November.

Krista Madsen, senior vice president of MusiCares, the charitable arm of the Grammys that provides health services to musicians, said that historically, more than 75% of their clients report being uninsured. Not having health insurance has long been part of the life of an artist, even though health problems can have a particularly debilitating effect on artists’ careers.

“If you think about your body as your tool of trade,” Madsen said, “it’s a bigger deal if you have a problem with your vocal cords or with your hearing.”

Average households are getting utterly screwed so that these Hollywood liberal turds can finally have what their hypocrite and union elites have hypocritically refused to give their workers while they self-righteously demonized everybody else for not being quite as evil as THEY have been. You see that in this article: actors and musicians are among the MOST LIKELY OF ALL WORKERS NOT TO HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. But hey, I’m a liberal, so let’s go over and scream at Wal-Mart for being better than WE are instead.

I read through this and did not see one single criticism of ObamaCare. Even though there are ALL KINDS of criticism about this damn law even in uberleftist California.

It is a vastly different thing to have “health insurance” and to have “health care” when your “health insurance” is in such a limited network that you can’t see a doctor and you definitely can’t see a specialist.

Just the other day in the very same paper as this “news article” appeared praising ObamaCare for saving liberal actors and musicians, I saw this one about what you “win” when you “win” your ObamaCare:

After overcoming website glitches and long waits to get Obamacare, some patients are now running into frustrating new roadblocks at the doctor’s office.

A month into the most sweeping changes to healthcare in half a century, people are having trouble finding doctors at all, getting faulty information on which ones are covered and receiving little help from insurers swamped by new business.

Experts have warned for months that the logjam was inevitable. But the extent of the problems is taking by surprise many patients — and even doctors — as frustrations mount.

Aliso Viejo resident Danielle Nelson said Anthem Blue Cross promised half a dozen times that her oncologists would be covered under her new policy. She was diagnosed last year with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and discovered a suspicious lump near her jaw in early January.

But when she went to her oncologist’s office, she promptly encountered a bright orange sign saying that Covered California plans are not accepted.

“I’m a complete fan of the Affordable Care Act, but now I can’t sleep at night,” Nelson said. “I can’t imagine this is how President Obama wanted it to happen.”

To hold down premiums under the healthcare law, major insurers have sharply cut the number of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the state’s new health insurance market.

Now those limited options are becoming clearer, and California officials say they are receiving more consumer complaints about access to medical providers. State lawmakers are also moving swiftly to ease some of the problems that have arisen.

“It’s a little early for anyone to know how widespread and deep this problem is,” said California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones. “There are a lot of economic incentives for health insurers to narrow their networks, but if they go too far, people won’t have access to care. Network adequacy will be a big issue in 2014.”

The latest travails come at a crucial time during the rollout of Obama’s signature law. Government exchanges and other supporters of the healthcare law are trying to boost enrollment, particularly among young and healthy people, ahead of a March 31 deadline.

Of course, complaints about outdated provider lists and delays in getting a doctor’s appointment were common long before the healthcare law was enacted. But some experts worry the influx of newly insured patients and the cost-cutting strategies of health plans may further strain the system.

Maria Berumen, a tax preparer in Downey, was uninsured for years because of preexisting conditions. The 53-year-old was thrilled to find coverage for herself and her husband for $148 a month after qualifying for a big government subsidy.

She jumped at the chance in early January to visit a primary-care doctor for long-running numbness in her arm and shoulder as a result of bone spurs on her spine. The doctor referred her to a specialist, and problems ensued. At least four doctors wouldn’t accept her health plan — even though the state exchange website and her insurer, Health Net Inc., list them as part of her HMO network.

“It’s a phantom network,” Berumen said.

It was no surprise to her family doctor, Ragaa Iskarous. She has run into this problem repeatedly with other patients in the last month, the doctor said. “This is really driving us crazy.”

Berumen said she was seen by a neurosurgeon Thursday — after state regulators intervened on her behalf.

Insurers say they are working hard to resolve customers’ problems as they arise, and they continue to add physicians to augment certain geographic areas and medical specialties.

“Any huge implementation like this comes with a lot of moving parts,” said Health Net spokesman Brad Kieffer. “There is a learning curve for everyone, and we expect as time goes on these issues should dissipate.”

Looking to head off potential problems, government regulators and patient advocates are pushing for tougher rules to ensure health plans provide timely access to care.

Last week, the California Assembly approved legislation enabling people who lost coverage because of the overhaul to keep seeing their doctors if they’re pregnant or undergoing treatment for cancer or other conditions.

Nelson, the cancer patient in Orange County, and her family lost their previous coverage when Aetna stopped selling individual policies in the state last year. After numerous complaints to her new insurer, Anthem, and to public officials, the company said it would cover visits to her current oncologist through March 31.

Nelson said such a temporary extension doesn’t solve the problem, and as a result, she’s rushing to check out other policies for herself before open enrollment closes in March.

A spokesman for Anthem said the company “continually works to update its provider directories to ensure accuracy” and helps customers with these issues on a case-by-case basis.

You’ve got “insurance,” thanks to Obama.

What you DON’T have and now will NEVER have is “health care.”

Because even in a state like California that liberals are praising because everything there is working “better” than most of the other states that are a complete unmitigated disaster, the system is broken and will now necessarily fall completely apart.

And because liberals got what they wanted (genuine evil, as usual), you can count on the FACT that you are going to now have to pay more and more and more to get less and less and less:

Health industry officials say ObamaCare-related premiums will double in some parts of the country, countering claims recently made by the administration.

The expected rate hikes will be announced in the coming months amid an intense election year, when control of the Senate is up for grabs. The sticker shock would likely bolster the GOP’s prospects in November and hamper ObamaCare insurance enrollment efforts in 2015.

The industry complaints come less than a week after Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to downplay concerns about rising premiums in the healthcare sector. She told lawmakers rates would increase in 2015 but grow more slowly than in the past.

“The increases are far less significant than what they were prior to the Affordable Care Act,” the secretary said in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Her comment baffled insurance officials, who said it runs counter to the industry’s consensus about next year.

“It’s pretty shortsighted because I think everybody knows that the way the exchange has rolled out … is going to lead to higher costs,” said one senior insurance executive who requested anonymity.

The insurance official, who hails from a populous swing state, said his company expects to triple its rates next year on the ObamaCare exchange. {…}

You can find out more about the sky-high rate increases here. I wouldn’t want to count on the Los Angeles Times. To the extent they ever bother to actually report the truth at all, it is usually immediately swallowed up by a dozen propaganda articles that try to pump Kool Aid into your brain rather than facts.

Liberals are liars, pure and simple. They are evil people with an evil and frankly demonic agenda. That is what you get when you turn over “health care” to the demonic political party that has murdered more than fifty-five million innocent human beings since 1973 in their abortion mills before making the worship of homosexual sodomy mandatory.

But hey, the little people of Hollywood – you know, the tiny, little cockroaches of liberalism – have their “health insurance” now after having had it denied to them for decades by the same liberal progressive Hollywood tycoons who for years and years have arrogantly and self-righteously demonized the rest of us. So praise false Messiah Obama for that, at least.

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

She was wrong only in this: you don’t GET to “stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ and face the bureaucrats who decide whether you live or die. That’s a privilege you don’t deserve in a socialized health care system. Rather, you are just left twisting in the wind wondering where the hell your health care is while you die of medical neglect.

In other words, Sarah Palin’s description of reality under Obama – as terrifying as it was – wasn’t anywhere NEAR terrifying enough.

When you’ve got a Hitler or a Stalin or a Mao – or a true socialist ideologue dictator like Obama – running your country, the truth is almost always more terrifying than the fiction.

The Veterans Administration debacle where veterans across the country are DYING while waiting in vain with their neglect covered up by secret lists is proof that death panels are all-too real. And that no, you don’t get to “stand” in front of them. Because even THAT is too much work for these bureaucrats.

You’ve got to stop and think about what the Obama administration’s excuses are. Do they say something on the order of, “You can’t possibly blame me for this given the sheer size of government. Now please excuse me while I make the government that is clearly already too big and too out-of-control even BIGGER and even MORE out-of-control.”

Or maybe Obama wants to say something like, “The death panels that you see are not my ObamaCare death panels, but VA death panels. Now excuse me while I go make your ObamaCare more like the socialized VA system.”

You need to understand that: the classic Democrat talking point is that the VA disaster is one that has been going on for years, so it’s nobody’s fault. Except that Democrats – and Barack Obama in particular – have been trying to make EVERYBODY’S health care more like the VA system. And so how is it not their fault?

If the VA is a bad system that is too socialized, too big, too bureaucratic and too bloated, then why the hell are these Democrats (i.e., “DEMOn possessed bureauCRATS) trying to make the REST of health care just like the system they say is broken and can’t be made to work?

There are at least two reasons why socialized medicine invariably becomes a death panel from at least two different directions. The first is because the government can force private medical practices to jump through all kinds of hoops and impose all kinds of burdensome regulations and costs. But when they take over health care delivery, suddenly they discover that, hell, this is EXPENSIVE, and then they begin to reduce treatment to save money. And the second is more insidious but pervasive throughout the system: once health care is socialized, there is simply no incentive for doctors to provide the sort of care they are forced to provide in private practice. As an example of this, it was discovered in the Albuquerque VA facility that eight cardiologists were doing the work of ONE private practice cardiologist:

There are eight physicians in the cardiology department. But at any given time, only three are working in the clinic, where they see fewer than two patients per day, so on average there are only 36 veterans seen per week. That means the entire eight-person department sees as many patients in a week as a single private practice cardiologist sees in two days, according to the doctor.

For perspective, 60% of cardiologists reported seeing between 50 and 124 patients per week, according to a 2013 survey of medical professionals’ compensation conducted by Medscape. On the low end, the average single private practice cardiologist who participated in the study saw more patients in a week than the Albuquerque VA’s entire eight-person cardiology department.

In some cases, a long wait to see a doctor is just another routine inconvenience of the sort people expect in a large bureaucracy, but other times it can be a matter of life and death.

The problem is NOTmoney. The problem is a stifling bureaucracy that simply ABSORBS money like a giant sponge and the problem is the disincentivization of salaried doctors who simply do not havethe incentives to work harder and see more patients the way that private practice doctors have.

As of June 2011, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs reported that an average of 1,100 veterans die every single day. I recently heard the figure of 1,800 WWII vets dying per day – and you would expect that as the years go by and these veterans get older, the survivors would die at an increasingly faster rate. There is simply no way that the relatively small number of younger veterans who are entering the system compared to the large number of older veterans who are dying off are overwhelming the system. The fact is the opposite of what Democrats are saying: we have more money per veteran than EVER. And yet we have more problems (under Obama) than we have EVER had.

Here is the bottom line: socialized or “single payer” medical systems are doomed to inefficiency. The result is you keep paying more and more to keep getting less and less. That is simply a fact.

ObamaCare is one giant ‘death panel’ in the making. And with the above-mentioned caveat, Sarah Palin NAILED its essence in her “death panel” warning five years ago.

But we also know that NOTHING about Obama is “at best.” We know that this worthless disgrace is always THE WORST. And so we also now know that Obama is a serial LIAR without any shame, any honor, any decency, any integrity, or any virtue. The FACTS scream that Obama is a liar and yeah, HE DID KNOW this was going on for the six years he was doing NOTHING:

The Obama administration received clear notice more than five years ago that VA medical facilities were reporting inaccurate waiting times and experiencing scheduling failures that threatened to deny veterans timely health care — problems that have turned into a growing scandal.

Veterans Affairs officials warned the Obama-Biden transition team in the weeks after the 2008 presidential election that the department shouldn’t trust the wait times that its facilities were reporting.

“This is not only a data integrity issue in which [Veterans Health Administration] reports unreliable performance data; it affects quality of care by delaying — and potentially denying — deserving veterans timely care,” the officials wrote.

Robert Petzel resigned last week as the top health official for the Department of Veterans Affairs, just one day after testifying before a Senate committee that he knew VA health clinics were using inappropriate scheduling practices as early as 2010.

Whistleblowers claim the schemes continued until this year, leading to a recent wave of outrage that sent the VA and White House scrambling to correct the alleged problems and restore confidence in the department.

Petzel admitted that he knew of the issue after Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) questioned him about the memo below, in which a top VA executive warned the directors of all VA health networks that questionable scheduling practices would “not be tolerated.”

The message summarized at least 17 tactics that VA hospitals were known to have used to hide treatment delays and give the impression they were meeting the department’s goal of seeing patients within 14 to 30 days.

To wit: this is like every single other of Obama’s long list of scandals. Initial professed outrage: “I’m mad as hell,” Obama’s VA turd Shinseki says. And then not to be outdone, “Obama is madder than hell,” a top Obama aide says of his master. And then nobody is held responsible, nobody is fired, nobody even loses their damn BONUS.

Obama – as his mouthpiece Jay Carney has been doing – is referring to the VA abominations as “allegations.” When what has ALREADY been documented is criminal and evil.

Obama also said that he’s not going to let this “become a political football.” And thus as dictator and Fuehrer seized all power to investigate this so that no one can possibly hold him accountable in any way, shape or form as he deals with this scandal “the Chicago way.”

This is exactly what happened with the Benghazi scandal in which Obama and Hillary Clinton sent a United States Ambassador to a Libyan hellhole, refused to provide him with security he was begging for even as every other civilized power was pulling their people out of the violence-ridden region, left him to be raped, tortured and murdered while issuing stand down orders to those who pleaded to be allowed to help him and then covered-up their fiasco by dishonestly blaming the attack on a Youtube video that had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the pre-planned terrorist attack they should have seen coming. To date, Obama’s disgustingly shameful promises aside, the only person who has EVER been held responsible for this attack is the United States citizen who was slandered as the cause for this al Qaeda-sponsored terrorist attack.

This is exactly what happened with the IRS scandal in which, at the direction of Washington and specifically at the instigation of an Obama appointee, the IRS was used as a political weapon to target and punish Obama’s political opponents.

In every case, Obama relied on the fact that the mainstream media “news coverage” amounts to naked leftist propaganda. If you want to know how the media would have treated a Republican, just google “Donald Sterling” and see the daily outrage as the media focuses in on their target and then attacks him like red meat on a daily basis until he’s destroyed. Whereas in Obama’s case, if they even report the story, it’s treated as done and over with. So move on.

It is the routine script for a despicable ideologue failure. And he’s playing the same damn game again.

Everything that conservatives said would happen with ObamaCare has either happened or is happening, versus Obama who is now documented to have lied about EVERYTHING from being allowed to keep your doctor, or your health plan, to bending the cost curve down when in fact he’s done otherwise, to there being no taxes on people earning less than $200,000 when there are now all kinds of taxes, etcetera ad nauseam.

And as ObamaCare becomes more and more like the socialized medicine of the VA system, we can look at the countries who have victimized their citizens with appalling care and see what is coming next:

The only people in America who deserve to die slow, painful deaths of medical neglect are those who voted for Obama. But unless Republicans take over the Senate and then take the presidency away from Hillary Clinton – who wanted socialized medicine even before Obama did – we’re ALL going to suffer death by socialism.

Veterans EARNED their health care. By SERVING in the armed forces, and by subjecting themselves to conditions and environments that no civilian would EVER willingly experience – and by submitting to conditions in which they cannot sue the government which ordered them to do what they did – they EARNED their health care.

But the VA system – because it IS socialized, because it IS a government bureaucracy, because it IS huge – is broken.

Now Obama and the Democrats demand that every single person in America receive the benefits and care that only those who SERVED ought to receive. And now Obama and these Democrats are breaking our health care system by letting the same government that clearly is incapable of administering the Veterans Administration run the REST of the far larger health care system into the ground.

This is pretty much exactly what happened in the IRS scandal. Or in the Benghazi scandal. Etcetera.

Obama has lied to the American people about their health care. That is a documented fact. He has lied to the American people about their economy – as has now been revealed by his former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner as a documented fact. And he has lied to the American people about their national security when he covered up what happened at Benghazi and then attempted to cover up his cover-up.

If you DON’Tbelieve the same first paragraph wouldn’t read, “The White House wanted Ambassador Susan Rice to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Benghazi played in demonstrating Obama’s broad failure of policy against terrorism,” you are a rabid ideologue. The evidence is so overwhelming it is beyond unreal. Obama’s White House is THE most viscerally dishonest, zombie ideological and rabidly partisan administration in the entire history of the republic.

The White House wanted Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to lie on Sunday talk shows to downplay the part Social Security played in driving the deficit, it was revealed today.

Geithner writes in his memoir Stress Test, out today, that the White House communications director asked him to downplay the long term cost of Social Security spending to mollify the Democratic Party’s base.

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows, I objected when Dan Pfeiffer wanted me to say Social Security didn’t contribute to the deficit. It wasn’t a main driver of our future deficits, but it did contribute,’ he says.

‘Pfeiffer said the line was a ‘dog whistle’ to the left, a phrase I had never heard before. He had to explain that the phrase was code to the Democratic base, signaling that we intended to protect Social Security.’

Geithner’s book release comes amidst allegations that the White House changed the Sunday show talking points of U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s after the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya for political reasons.

Days after the White House claims it knew what happened in Benghazi was ‘an act of terror,’ Rice wrongly blamed an anti-Muslim internet video for the deadly assault in a string of high-profile interviews on network news stations.

The White House has forcefully denied that it made anything other than minor changes to Rice’s talking points. Recently released e-mails between deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and White House communications staff calls the veracity of the Obama administration’s claims into question.

The emails show that Rice was instructed to claim the attack was ‘spontaneously inspired ‘ and ‘to ​underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.’

Geithner’s anecdote about White House communications staff trying pressure him into misleading Americans about the country’s ability to meet its future financial obligations once again casts a shadow on the Obama administration’s willingness to tell the truth when the truth is politically unappealing.

He writes that Pfeiffer, who is now Obama’s senior communications adviser, often let party politics come into play when discussing how the administration should respond to fiscal issues.

During a discussion on spending cuts, Geithner says that Pfieffer argued that ‘we couldn’t afford to alienate our base and split a weakened Democratic Party in pursuit of an imaginary compromise with Republicans who didn’t want to compromise.’

Early reviews of Geithner’s book indicate that the former Treasury Secretary, who now works at a private equity firm, does not appear to have an axe to grind with Obama, giving greater weight to his recollections.

Geithner mostly uses the memoir to provide context for actions he took as Treasury Secretary from 2009 to 2013 to get the nation back on track after the financial crisis of 2008.

The only other seemingly negative remark Geithner makes about the White House is about President Obama, whom he says, ‘Sometimes I thought he wore his frustration too openly.’

‘He harbored the overly optimistic belief that since his motives and values were good, since his team was thoughtful and well-intentioned, we deserved to be perceived that way,’ Geithner says in the book, according to a review in the New York Times.

Hmmm, something about that. What does Geithner say?

‘I remember during one Roosevelt Room prep session before I appeared on the Sunday shows…

Three days before the 1994 State of the Union Address, President Bill Clinton’s advisers fretted about including a line promising that participants in the still-viable Hillarycare insurance overhaul would be allowed to keep their favored doctors and health care plans, a concern that would come back years later when President Barack Obama promised the same thing.

The line, which made it into the final speech in a slightly different form – Clinton told Americans they would have ‘the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor’ – was the subject of controversy because his aides knew it was untrue.

‘We have a line on p. 10 that says “You’ll pick the health plan and the doctor of your choice,”‘ an internal memo read.

‘I know that it’s just what people want to hear. But can we get away with it?’ he asked. ‘I am very worried about getting skewered for over-promising here on something we know full well we won’t deliver.’

SHARE PICTURE

Copy link to paste in your message

The Clintons’ first term in the White House was marred by the failure of ‘Hillarycare,’ an earlier proposed version of what would later become law as the Affordable Care Act

‘Over-promising': A 1994 memo released Friday shows a Clinton aide encouraging the president to drop from his State of the Union address a line promising Americans they could keep their health care plans and their doctors

SHARE PICTURE

Copy link to paste in your message

In his 1994 State of the Union address, Bill Clinton promised Americans ‘the freedom to choose a plan and the right to choose your own doctor’ — 13 years before Barack Obama made nearly identical pledges

The memo was part of more than 4,000 pages of documents released by the Bill Clinton Presdiential Library, and offers new insights into the development – and ‘sale’ to Congress – of the ill-fated Hillarycare program that represented a major public embarrassment for then-first lady Hillary Clinton.

‘Isn’t the whole thrust of our health plan to steer people toward cheaper, HMO-style providers?’ wrote the memo’s author, identified only as Todd.

‘It’s one thing to say we’ll preserve your option to pick the doctor of your choice (recognizing that this will cost more), it’s quite another to appear to promise the nation that everyone will get to pick the doctor of his or her choice,’ he added. ‘And that’s exactly what this line does.’

We are seeing breathtaking dishonesty all across the board. Barack Obama is a rabid cancer upon America.

And his Democrat Party has circled their wagons and are doing everything they possibly can to prevent so much as QUESTIONS being asked about it.

And the ONLY reason they think they can get away with it is because the mainstream media are more propagandist today – and frankly more sophisticated about the art and science of propaganda – than Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda or Stalin’s TASS were sixty years ago.

We live in an age of deception just before the coming of the Antichrist who was prophesied in Scripture to come to a worshiping world in the very last days. And we are watching with our eyes a Democrat Party that has officially announced that they are ready to take the Mark of the Beast.

If you believe Obama didn’t instruct Susan Rice to lie through his political thugs on those five Sunday Talk shows where she told outright lies that everyone KNOWS were outright lies, and if you don’t think the GOP should investigate something that frankly should lead to Obama being IMPEACHED for official corruption as he covered up the truth to maintain a lie that he had succeeded in “decimating” al Qaeda when that narrative was proven false by Benghazi – and then covered up his cover up by withholding the proof that the White House substituted its “Youtube video” talking points for “planned terrorist attack by an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization”, you have already demonstrated that you will surely believe the Antichrist’s lies and take his mark. And burn in hell for it.

This is the economic equivalent of getting in a fight for your life against a guy with a sword who cuts off your right arm. And you’re thinking, “Damn, I really needed that arm.” Only it’s the economy fighting to live and Obama’s socialist takeover of health care is the sword.

Contact:
Jenna Weisbord, 202-662-0766
jweisbord@franchise.org
WASHINGTON, April 24-Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that the 2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey found that, “In January, nearly half of small-business owners with at least five employees, or 45% of those polled, said they had had to curb their hiring plans because of the health law, and almost a third – 29% – said they had been forced to make staff cuts, according to a U.S. Bancorp survey of 3,173 owners with less than $10 million in annual revenue that will be released Thursday.” (Sarah Needleman & Angus Loten, “Small Businesses Find Benefits, Costs As They Navigate Affordable Care Act,” Wall Street Journal, 4/23/14)

Both pieces of research support bi-partisan efforts to return to the traditional definition of full-time employment under the ACA. This month the House of Representatives passed the Save American Workers Act, sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN). Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Donnelly (D-IN).

Below are highlights of the study:U.S. Bank Small Business Survey Finds “Owners Remain Skeptical Of The Long-Term Impact Of The Affordable Care Act On Their Business” With More Than 60 Percent Saying It Will Be Negative For Their Business. “The 2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey found that “slightly more than six in 10 owners now say the long-term impact of the Affordable Care Act will be negative on their business.” (2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey, U.S. Bank, 4/24/14)

Additional Findings:

Nearly half of businesses with at least five employees (45%) say it has forced them to decrease forecasted new hires and almost one-third report it has led to cuts in staff (29%).

Larger businesses are more likely to have cut employee benefits or shifted the cost burden of higher benefits to employees as a result of the legislation.

The smaller the business the more likely they say the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has caused them to postpone or cancel planned investments in their business.

At least three out of five owners with a minimum of $1 million in revenue or five employees say the new healthcare law has resulted in higher premiums for their business.

Local Business Owner Tim Cain Argues That The Health Law Raises Operating Costs And “The Timing Couldn’t Be Worse.” “…if the number of enrollees in his health plans increases to 70 percent of his workforce, Mr. Cain estimates his costs could swell to more than $500,000. That might force him to raise prices, he says, at a time when the impact of this year’s harsh winter—and an extended drought in California—is already pushing up costs for fruit and vegetables. ‘The timing couldn’t be worse, really,’ he says.” (Sarah Needleman & Angus Loten, “Small Businesses Find Benefits, Costs As They Navigate Affordable Care Act,” Wall Street Journal, 4/23/14)
This survey echoes previous research conducted by Public Opinion Strategies on behalf of the IFA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

According To A Public Opinion Strategies Survey, 31 Percent Of Franchise Businesses Have Already Reduced Worker Hours To Cope With Health Law. “Additionally, 27 percent of franchise and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses have already replaced full-time workers with part-time employees.” (Presentation of Findings From National Research Conducted Among Business Decision-Makers,” Public Opinion Strategies, 10/13)

Further, The POS Survey Found That More Than Half Of Businesses With 40 To 70 Employees Plan To Make Personnel Changes To Mitigate The Impact Of ACA. “Among businesses with 40 to 70 employees, 59 percent of franchise and 52 percent of non-franchise businesses plan to make personnel changes to stay below the 50 full time equivalent employee threshold. This accounts for 23 percent of all franchise and 10 percent of all non-franchise decision-makers surveyed.” (Presentation of Findings From National Research Conducted Among Business Decision-Makers,” Public Opinion Strategies, 10/13)
###

About the International Franchise Association
The International Franchise Association is the world’s oldest and largest organization representing franchising worldwide. Celebrating over 50 years of excellence, education and advocacy, IFA works through its government relations and public policy, media relations and educational programs to protect, enhance and promote franchising. Through its media awareness campaign highlighting the theme, Franchising: Building Local Businesses, One Opportunity at a Time, IFA promotes the economic impact of the more than 825,000 franchise establishments, which support nearly 18 million jobs and $2.1 trillion of economic output for the U.S. economy. IFA members include franchise companies in over 300 different business format categories, individual franchisees and companies that support the industry in marketing, law and business development.

ObamaCare is evil. It is simply evil. And evil laws have evil consequences.

Obama keeps assuring us that his fascist takeover of health care has reduced costs. His evidence? An idiot study by the CBO that revised a previous idiot study. (Let’s conveniently forget the fact that the CBO said costs would be lower than previously projected because people will get FAR crappier “health care” under ObamaCare than they had thought). The problem is that the real world doesn’t march to the goose step of either Obama or the idiots at the CBO. And actual businesses with actual employees who are on the verge of actually gutting their workforce to pay for this demonic law are screaming as their costs “necessarily skyrocket.”

The liars who gave us ObamaCare lied about EVERYTHING. Obama lied when he assured us it would get more popular over time; it has become LESS popular. He lied when he said it would bend the cost curve down (which he’s STILL falsely claiming); ObamaCare is MASSIVELY adding to the cost of healthcare – which is why businesses are faced with cutting hiring to pay the huge costs of this socialist mess. He lied when he said if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor. And he lied when he said if you already had health insurance and you liked your plan you would be able to keep your plan rather than be forced to accept Obama’s damn plan.

This country is going down the toilet. The liberal socialist elites – who preach “redistribution of wealth” but mean, “redistribute THE PEOPLE’S wealth to US” by means of manipulating markets, interest rates, federal reserve policies and government regulatory burdens – are ensuring it.

Jeb Bush made some waves by taking a stance on illegal immigration (it was ‘love’ that drove them to flout our rule of law) that have many conservatives saying not in this lifetime to his nomination.

And we’re told every single day by the leftist-oriented media talking head propagandists that any true conservative has absolutely no chance of ever winning the presidency.

Mind you, we also have the same ACTUAL history being replayed on a regular basis: Republicans listen to these leftist talking heads and opt for a RINO – as in “Republican In Name Only” denoting a candidate who is nowhere even CLOSE to being a true principled conservative – for their nominee on the assumption that said RINO will be able to capture the hearts and minds of the morally idiotic undecided voters. But once we have committed to the rationale that the left gives us that a more liberal candidate is a better candidate, the left does the “Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown” trick: they proceed to demonize our RINO and literally give him bloody fangs a la John McCain:

Democrats play the game of “Death by a Thousand Cuts” when it comes to destroying Republican candidates with lies. Only of course it’s a TRILLION cuts as the lies and slander and lunatic demonization piles on and on and on.

That said, it truly IS a difficult problem that a conservative Republican nominee for president is in when it comes to issues such as immigration and homosexual marriage and the like. It often seems, in our truly diseased culture, that the only way a politician has a chance is to be as evil and as toxic as the culture has become.

Ah, but we have an out now. And we have it thanks to Obama.

If you’re a true, rabid, die-hard, vicious conservative and – for the sake of argument – you truly want to punish your enemies and reward your friends the way Obama has done to his enemies on the right and for his friends on the left – what can you do to get elected?

Just lie, lie and then lie some more.

How did Barack Obama resolve his problem with homosexual marriage in 2008? He said something that everyone now knows was never true. He simply lied like hell. Homosexual marriage was what it was convenient for it to be for Obama’s political expediency until homosexual marriage was what it was convenient for it to be for Obama’s political expediency.

Want to take over a sixth of the economy? Lie like hell first and foremost. Hey, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. If you like your health plan you can keep your health plan. And my health plan will reduce costs by $2,500 for a family. Even though it will do the exact opposite.

If you follow Obama’s example, you can say WHATEVER you need to say, get yourself elected, and then do whatever you’re going to do. All the while demonizing everybody else around you.

So, yeah, say the Jeb Bush line. Hell, say it at least 37 times on major venues. And then after you’re elected, deport every damn ONE of the up-to 20 million illegal immigrants. I mean, kick down every damn door in America and drag them out screaming by their hair just because it’s more fun to drag them out that way.

In a stunning admission before a House Committee panel on Tuesday, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson admitted that the Obama Administration has been artificially inflating deportation numbers. While the administration has claimed a “record number” of deportations, earning Pres. Obama the nickname “Deporter in Chief”, Johnson admitted that they have been counting border apprehensions that are turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as deportations. […]

Jessica Vaughan, the Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, has been arguing that actual deportations have declined under Pres. Obama. In her research, she says that if you count all removals, including those done by ICE and Border Patrol, then the Obama administration averages 800,000 removals per year. In comparison, George W. Bush would have removed more than 1.3 million illegal aliens per year, and Bill Clinton would have removed more than 1.5 million per year.

Vaughan also found that if you examine deportations from enforcement efforts by ICE, the number declined by 19 percent between 2011 and 2012 and was on track to decline another 22 percent in 2013. Further, the total number of deportations in 2011 was the lowest level since 1973.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.

The administration has argued it is tougher on illegal immigration than previous presidents, and immigrant-rights groups have excoriated President Obama, calling him the “deporter-in-chief” for having kicked out nearly 2 million immigrants during his five-year tenure.

But Republican critics have argued those deportation numbers are artificially inflated because more than half of those being deported were new arrivals, caught at the border by the U.S. Border Patrol. Previous administrations primarily counted only those caught in the interior of the U.S. by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Under the Obama administration, more than half of those removals that were attributed to ICE are actually a result of Border Patrol arrests that wouldn’t have been counted in prior administrations,” said Rep. John Culberson, Texas Republican.

That would mean that in a one-to-one comparison with the final years of the Bush administration, deportations of those same people under Mr. Obama had actually fallen, according to immigration analysts who have studied the data.

So if you are the conservative mirror of Obama, with dishonesty being your common ground, here’s what you will do: you will kick down doors and you will drag out every single illegal immigrant in America by their damn hair while their children scream for their mommies and daddies. But you will say you will do (are doing and have done) just the opposite. That way, you can be like Obama and have your political cake and get to eat it too.

Just lie, lie, LIE like the devil Obama. Say whatever you want. Say illegal immigrants flooding into America is “an act of love.” And then ruthlessly target them the way the Obama thug IRS targeted the tea party while announcing how loving you are.

There you go. Intractable political problem solved. And all it takes is the willingness to be the worst liar in the history of the human race (after Obama, who has set the bar of deceit and dishonesty so high no one will ever break his record).

Now, I write that knowing the future because I know the Bible. It won’t happen. It won’t happen because America has degenerated into a place where liars and their lies will win, and Democrats are just better at being liars while their base is better at tolerating lies. Republicans can’t win that game any better than they can win the socialism game by promising to out-socialist the Democrats to buy whatever votes they need to buy.

I think – maybe even dare to hope – that Republicans will have a great 2014 midterm. But by 2016, the consistent liars will win the day (in other words, President Hillary).

You see, there comes a point when a culture is so toxic that there are simply no good options. We’ll have only “choices” like we had in 2012 (where we could either elect a man who believes that Christ Jesus is Lucifer’s brother or we could re-elect a man who actually ISLucifer’s brother). And given the choice between bad and worse, a wicked people will generally choose “worse.” Until a Hitler comes and then until the end.

God knew and knows the end from the beginning. He knew that America would rise on godly values and He knew that America would fall as the people became sufficiently wicked as to vote for a Democrat Party that would pervert and piss on every virtue the Word of God holds dear. That’s why America is nowhere to be found in Bible prophecy as we literally vote to destroy ourselves in the suicidal and nihilistic act of cutting ourselves off from God’s blessing. God knew that America was going to go down and go down hard.

Ultimately, big government liberals will transition to the ultimate big government liberal: the Bible calls him “the beast” and he will take over the global economy just as every liberal as dreamed about. Like Obama, he will promise the world and make political progress by skillfully demonizing his enemies. But he will lead the world into literal hell on earth.

This would be a funny one, if it wasn’t so tragic and so revealing as to the dishonest character of Barack Obama and the dishonesty of liberal “journalism.”

Barack Obama requested a meeting with popular Pope Francis, hoping to ride the coat tails of the popular pope.

But it turns out the two men were never in the same room, in terms of the accounts of the talk. One of them was in his own head with demons swirling around screaming at him and couldn’t hear a word the other said.

The über-über -liberal Los Angeles Times says Obama is their messiah-pharaoh-god-king and is incapable of deceit. So here is their account of the story highlighted on the front page of the main section of the paper:

“Sharing hopes for the poor: At the Vatican, Obama’s first-ever meeting with Pope Francis focused on the marginalized”

The subheadline on the story on page A2 reads, “President and Pope Francis meet at the Vatican, and mostly avoid the subject of U.S. bishops angry about ObamaCare..”

What is interesting about that subheading is that it is nothing more than the official propaganda of Obama and totally ignores the Pope’s own account of the meeting. If you read the story carefully, you never get any sense or idea that there were two accounts of what happened. There is only “Obama’s account” because Obama is everything to liberals and the sole arbiter of reality and morality and decency and deity. And the Pope is merely a human mouthpiece for a false god.

President Obama’s first meeting with Pope Francis produced a little schism of its own.

The Vatican and White House gave starkly different versions Thursday of Mr. Obama’s meeting with Francis.

The president’s account downplayed the Catholic Church’s concerns about religious freedom in the United States and Obamacare’s mandate to pay for contraception.

The pontiff and the president were cordial in the televised portions of their meeting, but a subtle competition to set the agenda played out after the meeting, which went well beyond its scheduled half-hour.

“We actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference in Rome. “In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.”

Mr. Obama deflected a reporter’s question about the extent of his discussion with the pope on the contraceptive mandate by saying that Francis “actually did not touch in detail” on the subject. The administration has been locked in a lengthy legal and political battle with the U.S. Catholic Church hierarchy over Obamacare and issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

The Vatican, however, issued a statement after the meeting saying the president’s discussions with Francis and two other top Vatican officials focused “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States], such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection” — issues that have fueled divisions between Mr. Obama and the church.

Although Mr. Obama wanted to highlight his bond with Francis over questions of economic inequality and helping the poor, Obamacare’s mandate for employers to pay for birth control gained more attention.

The president clearly wanted to benefit from the global popularity of the pope. Their meeting was a highlight of Mr. Obama’s foreign trip that ends Friday in Saudi Arabia, but it was at an awkward time for the president.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act’s mandate requiring for-profit employers of a certain size to offer insurance benefits that cover birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay. Some employers object to the mandate on the grounds that it violates their religious beliefs.

On Barack Obama’s account, the Pope couldn’t care less about the fact that Obama is daily pissing in the eye of Catholicism while trying to gouge OUT the eyes of religious freedom altogether.

So who is the moral leader telling the truth and who is the dishonest Antichrist politician???? Hmmmm. Boy is that one ever a head scratcher. Until you realize…

One of these men isn’t running for anything; the other one is a pure politician who is desperately trying to save his political party from being held accountable for their evil in an election that is less than eight months away.

When I go to the grocery store, there is frequently someone outside asking me for spare change. When I go to a fast food restaurant, there is more than occasionally someone outside asking me for spare change (although, it’s happened quite a few times that I’ve had people INSIDE these places asking me for spare change, too). When I get gas, there is often someone outside asking me for spare change.

Here is my response to them:

“Let me ask you a question: why should I give you anything?”

That’s a head scratcher for most of the people I deal with, I mean, beyond the pure “entitlement” mindset of, “Because you OWE me for being so wonderful.”

“Because I’m a human being,” I often hear.

“What does that mean to me?” I demand. “According to the theory of evolution, human beings are nothing more than a random-chance accident and you are nothing more than a slightly smarter version of a monkey. According to Darwinism, the stronger ought to survive and the weaker ought to have the decency to perish and get the hell out of the stronger’s way. When the lion or the wolf kills the weakest members of a herd, environmentalists point out that they’re actually doing the herd a service by winnowing out the genetically inferior members who would otherwise undermine the herd. Frankly, according to Darwinsim, I ought to be taking what little you DO have instead of weakening my own prospects to help an inferior.

So again, why should I give you anything?”

Well, as it so happens, there is only ONE correct answer. And here it is:

“Because I’m a human being created in the image of God, and because God loves human beings as demonstrated in His sending His Son to seek and to save me even when I’m lost. And because Jesus cares for the poor, you should care for the poor and help me.”

And with that lesson – along with my pointing out that I am NOT giving a damn thing to you because I’m a good person, but ONLY because I’m following the example of my Savior and Lord, Jesus – I buy them food (I don’t give money to self-destructive people who will only use it to further destroy themselves with drugs and alcohol and cigarettes).

So here’s the question: is there any connection between “morality” and “religion,” or is “morality” whatever the hell Obama or the government says it is?

In my own personal case, and very definitely in the case of orthodox/genuine Christian theology, morality has EVERYTHING to do with religion.

Let me get in the face of atheists here who would interrupt me and say that they’re atheists and they’re “moral.” Bullcrap. And here’s why: if you are an atheist and a situation arises and a lie or doing something wrong would benefit you and you don’t think you would get caught, why wouldn’t you do what would benefit you? And your answer as an atheist MUST be entirely subjective and completely arbitrary. Lying, for example, is “unchristian.” But how would lying by “unatheist?” What IS “atheist morality” such that if you do X you are a bad atheist??? And of course there is nothing, because atheism and morality have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. Whereas as a Christian, as a religious person, as someone who believes in God, I would tell the truth or do the moral thing in a given situation even to my own immediate harm because I BELIEVE THAT GOD REWARDS GOOD AND PUNISHES EVIL AT JUDGMENT DAY. WHICH ATHEISTS DON’T BELIEVE.

George Washington said, ““Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

So yeah, the view that morality comes from anywhere OTHER than religion is TREASON. Barack Obama and the Democrat Party are traitors to America according to the father of our country and our greatest American hero.

John Adams pointed out that the Constitution was written ONLY for people who believed in God and received their morality from Him: “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Samuel Adams put it this way: “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness.”

Patrick Henry had this to say: “The great pillars of all government and of social life [are] virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor…and this alone, that renders us invincible.”

You need to understand that when it comes to ObamaCare, “morality” is quite simply whatever the hell Obama says it is. “Morality” is a game of “Simon Says,” and Obama has appointed himself as “Simon.”

If morality can be completely and fundamentally severed from religion, then what IS morality? It is nothing more than whatever Obama or whoever is in charge of the government says it is. And nothing more. That ought to terrify you, if you aren’t a complete moral idiot.

Here’s another question: Can the government grant Hobby Lobby a waiver when it comes to forcing them to provide the four forms of “birth control” (read “abortifacients”) given that Hobby Lobby provides coverage for the sixteen forms of birth control that DON’T actually kill fertilized eggs (babies)???

Given that Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The purpose of the LAW was to prevent any laws that substantially burdened a person’s free exercise of religion., doesn’t it seem like Obama and Democrats ought to do anything possible to prevent forcing people to perform abortions or fund abortions against their religiously-informed consciences?

Consider all the other damn waivers Obama has issued in hopes of keeping his Democrats in power in the Senate. There is clearly another way around this because Obama has found another way at least 25 times when it came to protecting his Democrats from the consequences of their evil socialist health care takeover law.

Coincidentally, Schrader filed his bill the same day Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified on Capitol Hill that, “there is no delay beyond March 31st.” Of course, that wasn’t the first, or last, time she made that claim. And, as our colleagues over at Wonkblog explain, the administration is adamant that it’s not so much an extension as an accommodation.

Heritage provides a montage of such assurances as well as some well-deserved mockery:

No, it cannot happen. It will not happen. The Obama administration absolutely, positively will NOT extend the deadline to sign up for Obamacare.

This isn’t even a laugh line anymore. It’s just an eye roller. And how silly these guys look now:

“We have no plans to extend the open enrollment period. In fact, we don’t actually have the statutory authority to extend the open enrollment period in 2014.” — Health and Human Services (HHS) official Julie Bataille, March 11

“Once that 2014 open enrollment period has been set, they are set permanently.” – HHS official Michael Hash, March 11

“March 31st is the deadline for enrollment. You’ve heard us make that clear.” – Press Secretary Jay Carney, March 21

There was no delay…until there was. The Washington Post reported last night that March 31 is not, in fact, the final word. To get more time, you tell the government that you haven’t been able to sign up yet:

Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.

My favorite there is Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney, who says, “March 31st is the deadline for enrollment. You’ve heard us make that clear.”

Until he made it clear that Obama had tooted his ObamaHorn and imperiously re-issued “morality” to say that what would be wrong was now right and what is right is no longer wrong.

So it turns out the answer mimicked Obama’s campaign slogan: “Absolutely NOT” turned into “Yes, we can!”

And they could have protected Hobby Lobby from violating their consciences, too. They simply chose not to do so. Kind of like homosexuals had the right to marry whatever adult of the opposite sex who would have them and they chose not to exercise their right. Which is another way of saying that marriage between one man and one woman doesn’t violate anybody’s “rights.” It merely rightly defines what marriage IS.

So ObamaCare didn’t HAVE to substantially burden Christians who wanted to exercise their basic rights to form a corporation. Obama merely wanted to violate Christians’ rights because that’s the kind of demonic man he is.

There is no question whatsoever that Barack Obama is violating the Constitution and violating the law. He is imposing a substantial burden on religious freedom when there are very clearly ways to have avoided this fascist mess.

My point in the above is to simply demonstrate that Obama didn’t have to force Hobby Lobby to violate its conscience, either as individuals or as a corporation. There was another way, because as Obama has now proven over and over and over again, there has been another way around EVERY ASPECT of this idiotic failed law. And so there was a way around this too.

Here’s another thing: nobody knows what the Supreme Court is going to do on this one. It’s basically like, “Let’s spin the wheel of chance to find out what the Constitution means today!”

Laws no longer mean what they say in this country. Which is another way of saying they no longer mean ANYTHING.

America is no longer a nation of laws. Obama abrogates the law as he sees fit and simply issues unconstitutional waivers and unconstitutional extensions. It is a nation under a Fuehrer, rather than under God as we mouth in our Pledge of Allegiance.

And that’s important because that’s what Hitler did: he had his minions pledge allegiance directly to HIM. That’s what we all might as well be doing now, under Obama and his God damn America.

Democrats are liars without shame, without honor, without virtue, without integrity of any kind whatsoever. They are falsely claiming that Hobby Lobby is somehow denying women birth control when in fact they provide SIXTEEN different forms of birth control on the health insurance that they offer. This isn’t about health care OR birth control; it is about abortion and Obama wanting to demonically force Christians to violate their faith and their conscience and fund the murder of ANOTHER 55 million innocent human beings.

What does the Bible say about abortion and where babies come from?

“For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.” — Psalm 139:13-16

I stand for human LIFE. Which is another way of saying that I stand AGAINST this demon-possessed president and his demon-possessed Democrat Party and their genocide that is already more than nine times as murderous as Hitler’s.

And I stand for America as “One nation under God” as opposed to “One nation WITHOUT God” as godless Democrats are now demanding.

So, again, Democrats are demon-possessed LIARS for saying this is about a corporation not being a “person” and therefore not able to have religion. Because it is a FACT that Democrats don’t want ANY PERSON to be able to practice his or her religion unless it is a “religion” of demons.

“Those employers could choose not to give health insurance and pay not that high a penalty – not that high a tax,” Sotomayor said.

Clement said Hobby Lobby would pay more than $500 million per year in penalties, but Kagan disagreed.

“No, I don’t think that that’s the same thing, Mr. Clement,” Kagan said. “There’s one penalty that is if the employer continues to provide health insurance without this part of the coverage, but Hobby Lobby would choose not to provide health insurance at all.

So how can this be about “health care” when these liberal judges are literally telling Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties NOT to provide health care, but to just dump their poor bastard employees into the sewer of ObamaCare???

The crazy thing is, as Christians, Hobby Lobby would ALSO have to violate their consciences to refuse to provide their employees health care.

Liberals are evil, pure and simple. This isn’t about “health care.” This is about liberals trying “to control the people.”

This is about Obama and his government having a messiah complex, pure and simple.

We’re about to lose what little is left of America. It’s all up to the throw of the dice in the Supreme Court where a bunch of unelected judges get to sit and dictate what “religion” is and what “morality” is.

I noticed an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that basically reads thus: religious values ought to be private, whereas atheism is public. You are “free” to be as “religious” as you want – provided that you never dare try to emerge from the tiny little black box we liberals force you into. And whether you know it or not, everyone who forms a corporation has to abide by the tenets of secular humanist atheism and is literally immoral for trying to live out their religiously-informed moral values in any way, any shape or any form if they in any way run contrary to liberalism.

I have to ask the question: if liberals hadn’t taken these incredibly intrusive steps “to control the people” (the REAL purpose of ObamaCare), would our society be in this situation in which “a dangerous precedent is created” to allow the constitutional freedom of religion? The obvious answer is “NOT.” But of course religious people should really be viewed as the bad guys because when godless liberal fascists punch us in the mouth before they stab us in the heart we dare to try to defend ourselves.

Here’s the op-ed (note the highly-biased wording of the intro: should the people we hate have the right to evilly “violate” people’s rights?”):

Are secular, for-profit corporations free to violate the rights of their employees by claiming that the law violates their corporate religious conscience? That’s the big question at the heart of the two blockbuster challenges to a key provision of Obamacare that will be heard by the Supreme Court next week. In its 225-year history, the Supreme Court has never held that secular, for-profit corporations are entitled to the free exercise of religion. It should not start now.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood claim in their lawsuits that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers’ health insurance plans cover preventive care for women, including the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives, violates their right to the free exercise of religion. Houses of worship and other religiously affiliated employers already are entitled to a religious accommodation. Some secular businesses, such as Hobby Lobby, claim that they too exercise religion and should be exempted from the obligation to pay for contraceptive coverage for their employees.

Corporations have a number of constitutional rights, mostly connected to property rights and commerce, but the free exercise of religion has never been one of them. The Constitution’s protection of religious liberty always has been seen as a personal right, inextricably linked to the human capacity to express devotion to a god and to act on the basis of reason and conscience. In this respect, the free exercise right shares much in common with the 5th Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination, which too safeguards dignity and conscience and does not protect corporations.

Corporations lack the basic human capacities — reason, dignity and conscience — at the core of the free exercise right. Corporations cannot pray, do not express devotion to God and do not have a religious conscience. The fundamental values at the heart of the free exercise right simply make no sense as applied to corporations.

Corporations are created so business owners can take advantage of the special privileges of the corporate status, such as limited liability. What Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are seeking is to have their cake and eat it too: to be treated as a corporation to receive special privileges, but then be treated as an individual for the purposes of the fundamental protections our Constitution guarantees to secure freedom of conscience and human dignity for all Americans. Corporations should not be permitted to game the system in this way.

Extending free exercise rights to corporations would undercut the rights of actual living, breathing Americans. At stake in this lawsuit is whether corporate chief executives are entitled to impose their religious beliefs on their employees and deny important federal rights to those employees. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood hire workers of all religious faiths and persuasions, but refuse to respect that many of their employees may have a different set of religious views and want and need access to the full range of contraceptives.

Far from vindicating the Constitution’s promise of religious liberty, a ruling that corporations have the same right to the free exercise of religion as individuals would be a grave setback for the rights of Americans in our nation’s workplaces. It would also create a dangerous precedent with dramatic implications far beyond the Affordable Care Act.

A business run by Christian Scientists might refuse to pay for healthcare at all, other businesses run by devout individuals might refuse to pay for the costs of stem cell therapy, or refuse to extend family leave to same-sex married couples, or even fire employees for engaging in activities, such as terminating a pregnancy, that do not conform to the religious code of the company’s owners.

The justices should reject the notion that a corporation is a person that exercises religion.

David H. Gans is director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights and Citizenship Program at the Constitutional Accountability Center. He is a coauthor of the center’s amicus brief in Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. vs. Sebelius.

I never realized that no religious person ever formed a business, but that every single business that ever became a corporation was inherently “secular” (i.e. defined as having no part with ANY religious values)?

I’ve never actually formed a corporation before, so maybe I’m wrong and every time – dating back to the days of our VERY RELIGIOUS founding fathers - people formed a corporation they had to sign some kind of statement agreeing to surrender their constitutional rights to their freedom of religion.

I note the wording of Gans, who says, “The Constitution’s protection of religious liberty always has been seen as a personal right, inextricably linked to the human capacity to express devotion to a god and to act on the basis of reason and conscience.” And, again, having never formed a corporation, I can’t say with certainty that a “human” or “humans” have ever formed a corporation before. Maybe only robots devoid of any “human capacity” have the right to form corporations.

I wonder who forms corporations. Apparently, it’s NOT human beings. But then again, liberals DO view what they colloquially refer to as “human beings” as soulless meat puppets.

So please don’t lecture me that you atheists are going to hold corporations “morally responsible” when you simultaneously deny those selfsame corporations the very foundation for what makes morality possible.

It is for this reason that our founding fathers wrote, “Of all the habits and dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars.” It is for this reason that our founding fathers wrote, “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Basically, what Gans is asserting is that no religious person ought to be allowed to form a corporation if they want to be allowed to practice their values; only atheist, secular humanist liberals ought to be allowed to incorporate. Which George Washington pretty much directly stated was an act of treason. Oh, you could look at it this way (with liberals playing the part of the Pharisee’s Temple guard punching Jesus in the mouth and mocking Him by saying, “Prophesy, who is the one who hit You?”). On this view, Hobby Lobby should have prophetically KNOWNwhen they chose to incorporate back in 1972 that one day demon-possessed liberals would force them to abandon and betray their Christian moral values and decided not to incorporate.

The alternative is to suggest that Christians and other religious people really have no business forming a business and should not have the right to incorporate unless they agree to abide by the moral values of Hitler, Stalin and fascist liberals.

Why is it that if I form a corporation I don’t have any right to imprint it with my values, but must instead bow down to Obama’s values?

I ask who died and made liberals “god”? Because one thing is crystal clear: they HAVE made themselves God such that they can depose God’s moral values and install their own rival values in place of God’s values.

You need to understand what is happening and why. Back in 1972 when Hobby Lobby incorporated, none of this crap was an issue. What has happened since is that godless liberals have seized more and more and more dictatorial power for their fascist Government-as-God and have put God and those who value Him and His values into a smaller and smaller little box. And what liberals are saying today is that we won’t take away your “freedom” to believe in your stupid little “god” – as the overwhelming majority of Americans still do – provided you live your life as if you DON’T believe in God.

And in this age of atheism as the official policy of the United States, how dare these nuns not play the part of Pilate?

Religious people have no right to impose their moral values; that is a right that only godless liberal Nazis ought to have.

The sad thing is that very soon the Antichrist – the beast prophesied in the Books of Daniel and Revelation – will take power. And these liberals will have their way. But you can see it coming today if you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

The beast is coming. And after liberals vote for him to impose the mark of the beast, by which no man or woman may participate in the economy unless they worship the beast and take his mark upon their right hands or their foreheads, believe you me that “religious values” will NOT be legitimate grounds to escape.